Sexual Utopia in Power, Part 4

Clasped hands from a figure of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, Egyptian Museum, Berlin

4,091 words

The Forgotten Men

The attempt to realize a sexual utopia for women was doomed to failure before it began. Women’s wishes aim at the impossible, conflict with one another, and change unpredictably. Hence, any program to force men (or “society”) to fulfill women’s wishes must fail, even if all men were willing to submit to it. Pile entitlement upon entitlement for women, heap punishment after punishment onto men: It cannot work, because women’s wishes will always outpace legislation and lead to new demands.

But while the revolution has not achieved its aims, it has certainly achieved something. It has destroyed monogamy and family stability. It has resulted in a polygamous mating pattern of immodest women aggressively pursuing a small number of men. It has decreased the number of children born, and insured that many who are born grow up without a father in their lives. And, least often mentioned, it has made it impossible for many decent men to find wives.

One occasionally hears of studies purporting to show that men are happier with their “sex lives” than women. It has always struck me as ludicrous that anyone would take such survey results at face value. First, women complain more about everything than men. But second, many men (especially young men) experience a powerful mauvaise honte when they are unsuccessful with women. They rarely compare notes with other men, and still more rarely do so honestly. Everyone puts up a brave front, however lonely he may actually be. Hence, men almost always imagine other men to have greater success with women than is actually the case. This situation has worsened since the 1960s, with the propagation of the illusion that there is “more sex” available to men than formerly.

But if women are only mating with a few exceptionally attractive men, and if many women fail to mate at all, there must be a large number of men unable to get a woman. We might, in the spirit of William Gilmore Simms, term them the forgotten men of the sexual revolution. I have reason to believe that a growing number are willing to come out of the closet (to use a currently popular expression) and admit that, whoever has been doing all the “hooking up” one reads about, it hasn’t been them. Simple prudence dictates that we give some consideration to the situation of these men. In societies where polygamy is openly practiced (e.g., in Africa and the Muslim world), young bachelors tend to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior: “It is not good for man to be alone.”

In our society, a definite pattern has already emerged of “singles” groups or events being composed of innocent, never-married men in their thirties and cynical, bitter, often divorced women. What have the bachelors been doing with themselves all these years? So far, in the West, they have not been forming criminal gangs. They would probably be more attractive to women if they did: Everyone seems to have heard the stories about men on death row being besieged with offers of marriage from bored, thrill-seeking females.

I suggest that today’s bachelors are hardly different from men who, before the sexual revolution, married young and raised families.

Natural instinct makes young men almost literally “crazy” about girls. They believe young women are something wonderful when in fact most are not. The male sex drive that modern women complain so much about exists largely for women’s benefit. As Schopenhauer wrote:

Nature has provided [the girl] with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years . . . so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence.[1]

So far from being unwilling to commit, many men are only too happy to marry the first girl they meet who is nice to them. The modern bachelor is no different.

Furthermore, many men assume women value honest, clean-living, responsible men (as opposed to death-row criminals). So slowly, patiently, by dint of much hard work, amid uncertainty and self-doubt, our bachelor makes a decent life for himself. No woman is there to give him love, moral support, loyalty. If he did make any effort to get a wife, he may have found himself accused of “harassment” or “stalking.”

Kick a friendly dog often enough and you have a mean dog on your hands.

What were our bachelor’s female contemporaries doing all those years while he was an impoverished, lonely stripling who found them intensely desirable? Fornicating with dashing fellows who mysteriously declined to “commit,” marrying and walking out on their husbands, or holding out for perfection. Now, lo and behold, these women, with their youthful looks gone and rapidly approaching menopause, are willing to go out with him. If they are satisfied with the free meals and entertainment he provides, he may be permitted to fork over a wedding ring. Then they will graciously allow him to support them and the children they had by another man for the rest of his life. (I have seen a woman’s personal ad stating her goal of “achieving financial security for myself and my daughters.”) Why in heaven’s name would any man sign up for this? As one man put it to me: “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.”

Western woman has become the new “white man’s burden,” and the signs are that he is beginning to throw it off.

Sexual Thermidor: The Marriage Strike

The term “Thermidor” originally designated the month of the French Revolutionary calendar in which the terror ended. By July 1794, twenty or thirty persons were being guillotined daily in Paris under a so-called Law of Suspects requiring no serious evidence against the accused. Addressing the Convention on July 26, Robespierre incautiously let slip that certain delegates were themselves under suspicion of being “traitors,” but declined to name them. His hearers realized their only hope of safety lay in destroying Robespierre before he could destroy them. They concerted their plans that night, and the following morning he was arrested. Within two days, he and eighty of his followers went to the guillotine. Over the next few weeks, the prisons emptied and life again assumed a semblance of normality.

Something analogous appears to be happening today in the case of feminism. Consider, for example, the sexual harassment movement. As it spreads, the number of men who have not been accused steadily diminishes. Eventually a point is reached where initially sympathetic men understand that they themselves are no longer safe, that their innocence does not protect them or their jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this point is being reached in many workplaces. Men are developing a self-defensive code of avoiding all unnecessary words or contact with women. One hears stories about women entering break rooms full of merrily chatting male coworkers who look up and instantly lapse into tense, stony silence. A “hostile work environment” indeed.

A more serious development, however, is what has come to be known as the marriage strike. The first occurrence of this term appears to have been in a Philadelphia Enquirer editorial of 2002.[2] Two years later, a formal study gave substance to the idea: Fully 22 percent of American bachelors aged 25–34 have resolved never to marry. 53 percent more say they are not interested in marrying any time soon.[3] That leaves just 25 percent looking for wives. This may be a situation unprecedented in the history of the world.

Men do cite the availability of sex outside marriage as one reason for not marrying. But this does not mean that the problem could be solved simply by getting them to take vows (e.g., by shotgun marriage). Men now realize they stand to lose their children at a moment’s notice through no fault of their own if the mother decides to cash out of the marriage or “relationship” in Family Court. For this reason, many are refusing to father children with or without benefit of clergy. In Germany, which faces an even lower birthrate than America, the talk is already of a Zeugungsstreik, literally a “procreation strike,” rather than a mere marriage strike.[4] Some women suffering from what has come to be known as “babies-rabies” have resorted to lying to their men about using birth control. Of course, men are wising up to this as well.

No woman is owed economic support, children, respect, or love. The woman who accepts and lives by correct principles thereby earns the right to make certain demands upon her husband; being female entitles her to nothing.

Western women have been biting the hand that feeds them for several decades now. It seems to me fair to say that the majority have willfully forfeited the privilege of marrying decent men. It is time for men to abandon the protector role and tell them they are going to be “liberated” from us whether they wish it or not. They can hold down their own jobs, pay their own bills, live, grow old, and finally die by themselves. Every step which has brought them to this pass has involved an assertion of “rights” for themselves and male concessions to them. Men would seem justified in saying to them, with some Schadenfreude, “you made your bed, now you can lie in it—alone.”

Unfortunately, the matter cannot simply be allowed to rest here. Without children, the race has no future, and without women men cannot have children.

One well-established trend is the search for foreign wives. Predictably, efforts are underway by feminists to outlaw, or at least discourage this, and one law has already gotten through Congress (the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005). The ostensible reason is to protect innocent foreign lasses from “abuse”; the real reason to protect spoiled, feminist-indoctrinated American women from foreign competition. Most of the economic arguments about protective tariffs for domestic industry apply here.

Feminists think in terms of governmental coercion. The idea of eliciting desirable male behavior does not occur to them. Some men are concerned that proposals for forced marriage may be in the offing.

Meanwhile, men have begun to realize that any sexual intimacy with a woman can lead to date rape charges based upon things that go on in her mind afterwards, and over which he has no control. Women do frequently attempt to evade responsibility for their sexual conduct by ascribing it to the men involved. Without any social or legal enforcement of marriage, this leaves chastity as a man’s only means of self-defense.

A male sex strike was probably beyond the imagination even of Aristophanes. But I wouldn’t underestimate men. We, and not women, have been the builders, sustainers, and defenders of civilization.

The latest word from college campuses is that women have begun to complain men are not asking them out. That’s right: Men at their hormonal peak are going to class side by side with nubile young women who now outnumber them, and are simply ignoring or shunning them. Some report being repeatedly asked “Are you gay?” by frustrated coeds. This is what happens when women complain for forty years about being “used as sex objects”: Eventually men stop using them as sex objects.

Not long ago I spotted a feminist recruitment poster at a local college. Most of it consisted of the word FALSE in bold capitals, visible from a distance. Underneath was something to the effect: “. . . that we’re all man-hating maniacs,” etc.; “Come join us and see.”

When the most inspiring slogan a movement can come up with amounts to “We’re not as bad as everyone says,” you know it is in trouble.

What Is to Be Done?

We have arrived at a rare historical moment when we men have the upper hand in the battle of the sexes. Much depends upon the use we make of it. The only thing still propping up the present feminist-bureaucratic regime is the continued willingness of many of the hated “heterosexual white males” to live according to the old rules: not only to work, save, pay taxes, and obey the law, but also to sire and raise children. Once we stop doing these things, the whole system of patronage and parasitism collapses.

My greatest fear is that at the first female concessions, the male protective instinct will kick in once again and men will cheerfully shout “All is forgiven” in a stampede to the altar. This must not happen. Our first priority must be to put the divorce industry out of business. A man must insist on nothing less than a legally binding promise to love, honor, and obeyhim before “consenting” to give a woman a baby.

One proposal for strengthening marriage is the recognition of personalized marriage contracts. These could be made to accord with various religious traditions. I see no reason they might not stipulate that the husband would vote on behalf of his family. Feminists who think political participation more important than family life could still live as they please, but they would be forced to make a clear choice. This would help erode the superstitious belief in a universal right to participate in politics, and political life itself would be less affected by the feminine tendencies to value security over freedom and to base public policies on sentiment. Property would also be more secure where the producers of wealth have greater political power.

Economic policy should be determined by the imperative to carry on our race and civilization. There is something wrong when everyone can afford a high-definition plasma TV with three hundred channels but an honest man of average abilities with a willingness to work cannot afford to raise a family.

Female mate selection has always had an economic aspect. Hesiod warned his male listeners in the seventh century B.C. that “hateful poverty they will not share, but only luxury.” This notorious facet of the female sexual instinct is the reason behind the words “for richer or for poorer” in the Christian marriage ceremony. The man must know he has a solid bargain whether or not he is as successful a provider as his wife (or he himself) might like.

Within the family, the provider must control the allotment of his wealth. The traditional community of property in a marriage, i.e., the wife’s claim to support from her husband, should again be made conditional on her being a wife to him. She may run off with the milkman if she wishes—leaving her children behind, of course (anyone willing to do this is perhaps an unfit mother in any case); but she may not evict her husband from his own house and replace him with the milkman, nor continue to extract resources from the husband she has abandoned. Until sensible reforms are instituted, men must refuse to leave themselves prey to a criminal regime which forces them to subsidize their own cuckolding and the abduction of their children.

The date rape issue can be solved overnight by restoring shotgun marriage—but with the shotgun at the woman’s back. The “victim” should be told to get into the kitchen and fix supper for her new lord and master. Not exactly a match made in heaven, but at least the baby will have both a father and a mother. Furthermore, after the birth of her child, the woman will have more important things to worry about than whether the act by which she conceived it accorded with some feminist professor’s newfangled notion of “true consent.” Childbirth has always been the best remedy for female narcissism.

Harassment accusations should be a matter of public record. This would make it possible to maintain lists of women with a history of making such charges for the benefit of employers and, far more importantly, potential suitors. Women might eventually reacquaint themselves with the old-fashioned idea that they have a reputation to protect.

Universal coeducation should be abandoned. One problem in relations between the sexes today is overfamiliarity. Young men are wont to assume that being around girls all the time will increase their chances of getting one. But familiarity is often the enemy of intimacy. When a girl only gets to socialize with young men at a dance once a week, she values the company of young men more highly. It works to the man’s advantage not to be constantly in their company. Men, also, are most likely to marry when they do not understand women too well.

It is necessary to act quickly. It took us half a century to get into our present mess, but we do not have that long to get out of it. A single-generation Zeugungsstreik will destroy us. So we cannot wait for women to come to their senses; we must take charge and begin the painful process of unspoiling them.

How Monogamy Works

Traditionally, a man has been expected to marry. Bachelorhood was positively forbidden in some ancient European societies, including the early Roman republic. Others offered higher social status for husbands and relative disgrace for bachelors. There seems to have been a fear that the sexual instinct alone was inadequate to insure a sufficient number of offspring. Another seldom mentioned motive for the expectation of marriage was husbands’ envy of bachelors: “Why should that fellow be free and happy when I am stuck working my life away to support an ungrateful creature who nags me?”

Strange as it sounds to modern ears, the Christian endorsement of celibacy was a liberalization of sexual morality; it recognized there could be legitimate motives for remaining unmarried. One social function of the celibate religious orders was to give that minority of men and women unsuited for or disinclined to marriage a socially acceptable way of avoiding it.

Obviously, an obligation of marrying implies the possibility of doing so. It was not difficult for an ordinary man to get a wife in times past. One reason is what I call the grandmother effect.

Civilization has been defined as the partial victory of age over youth. After several decades of married life, a woman looks back and finds it inconceivable that she once considered a man’s facial features an important factor in mate selection. She tries to talk some sense into her granddaughter before it is too late. “Don’t worry about what he looks like; don’t worry about how he makes you feel; that isn’t important.” If the girl had a not especially glamorous but otherwise unexceptionable suitor (the sort who would be charged with harassment today), she might take the young man’s part: “If you don’t catch this fellow while you can, some smarter girl will.” So it went, generation after generation. This created a healthy sense of competition for decent, as opposed to merely sexually attractive, men. Husbands often never suspected the grandmother effect, living out their lives in the comforting delusion that their wives married them solely from recognition of their outstanding merits. But today grandma has been replaced by Cosmopolitan, and the results are there for all to see.

Much confusion has been caused by attempting to get women to say what it is they want from men. Usually they bleat something about “a sensitive man with a good sense of humor.” But this is continually belied by their behavior. Any man who believes it is in for years of frustration and heartbreak. What they actually look for when left to their own devices (i.e., without any grandmother effect) is a handsome, socially dominant, or wealthy man. Many prefer married men or philanderers; some actively seek out criminals.

In a deeper sense, though, humans necessarily want happiness, as the philosopher says. During most of history no one tried to figure out what young women wanted; they were simply told what they wanted, viz., a good husband. This was the correct approach. Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment. The overwhelming majority of women will be happier in the long run by marrying an ordinary man and having children than by seeking sexual thrills, ascending the corporate heights, or grinding out turgid tracts on gender theory. A woman develops an emotional bond with her mate through the sexual act itself; this is why arranged marriages (contrary to Western prejudice) are often reasonably happy. Romantic courtship has its charms, but is finally dispensable; marriage is not dispensable.

Finally, heterosexual monogamy is incompatible with equality of the sexes. A wife always has more influence on home life, if only because she spends more time there; a husband’s leadership often amounts to little more than an occasional veto upon some of his wife’s decisions. But such leadership is necessary to accommodate female hypergamy. Women want a man they can look up to; they leave or fall out of love with men they do not respect. Hence, men really have no choice in the matter.

Once more, we find nearly perfect agreement between feminist radicals and plenty of conservatives in failing to understand this, with men getting the blame from both sides. Feminists protest that “power differentials” between the sexes—meaning, really, differences in status or authority—make genuine sexual consent impossible. In a similar vein, the stern editor of Chronicles laments that “in the case of a college professor who sleeps with an 18-year-old student, disparity in age or rank should be grounds for regarding the professor as a rapist. But professors who prey upon girls are not sent to jail. They do not even lose their jobs.”[5]

In fact, this is just one more example of hypergamous female mate selection. In most marriages, the husband is at least slightly older than the wife. Normal women tend to be attracted precisely to men in positions of authority. Nurses do tend to choose doctors, secretaries their bosses, and the occasional female student will choose a professor; this does not mean the men are abusing any “power” to force helpless creatures to mate with them.

I submit that a man’s “preying upon” a younger women of lower rank should be grounds for regarding him as a husband. Men are supposed to have authority over women; that is part of what a marriage is. Equality of the sexes makes men less attractive to women; it has probably contributed significantly to the decline in Western birthrates. It is time to put an end to it.

Conclusion

Marriage is an institution; it places artificial limits on women’s choices. To repeat: Nature dictates that males display and females choose. Monogamy artificially strengthens the male’s position by insisting that (1) each female must choose a different male; and (2) each female must stick to her choice. Monogamy entails that highly attractive men are removed from the mating pool early, usually by the most attractive women. The next women are compelled to choose a less attractive mate if they wish to mate at all. Even the last and least of the females can, however, find a mate: For every girl there is a boy. Abolishing marriage only strengthens the naturally stronger: it strengthens the female at the expense of the male and the attractive at the expense of the unattractive.

Marriage, like most useful things, was probably invented by men: partly to keep the social peace, partly so they could be certain their wives’ children were also their own. The consequences of marriage must have appeared soon after its institution: The efforts previously spent fighting over mates were replaced by strenuous exertions to provide for, rear, and defend offspring. No doubt neighboring tribes wondered why this one had recently grown so much more powerful. When they learned the reason, imitation must have seemed a matter of survival.

It was, and it still is. If the Occident does not restore marriage, we will be overwhelmed by those who continue to practice it.

41 Comments

“… the marriage strike. The first occurrence of this term appears to have been in a Philadelphia Enquirer editorial of 2002.”

“Ehestreik” (marriage strike) is a German film comedy from 1935, about a Bavarian village, where the women protest with a strike against their men who seem to have collectively fallen in love with the new waitress of the local inn. The young widow who took the initiative is the first to break the strike (it hardly lasts a day). At the happy end, both the widow and the waitress get married.
On Youtube: https://youtu.be/PVXYUXO-xIQ

White nationalism’s view on women is very “beta.” (not including Devlin’s excellent article, but the general view of women amongst WN)

I really feel that the “gamer” types and men’s rights activist types have a much more realistic view of women that WN should integrate into its philosophy as opposed to the old-world, almost Christian, beta view that it has now.

I agree, largely, in that “Game: should not be an end unto itself, or even the means to an end of sexual attainment. Rather, it acts as an inoculation, which is desperately needed. With psychological distance comes the opportunity for cooler, deeper, wiser analysis of the “Relationship,” and what it really has to offer.

There was a great piece on the old VNN from “Elizabeth Bennett” on “How to Marry a High Quality Woman.” It’s from the women’s point of view – the one they show us – and aims to turn us into marriage material, as the necessary first step.

Hell with that!

This is a good part of how we have been played for fools by the man-hating Judeo-Feminists. It’s our fault, and our responsibility. Believe me when I tell you this: Women are simply terrified that we will catch on to this, and Do Something about it. If anything I have said has the ring of Truth to it, this is the damn jeweler’s forge. It is critical to understand how we have been manipulated nonverbally, and how easily we can stop it – simply See THEIR Game for what it is, and See how all of Civilization has been perverted into a social order that is totally antagonistic to men, deeming us, one and all, Males – nice terms for geldings, that.

Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books Principle is of singular importance to us as Men, and as Men of the West – by definition, White nationalists.

“Wordism” is a term developed by Eric Hoffer. We at Bob Whitaker’s website use it a lot, and it needs mentioning as it points to a common weakness we share. (Word)ism, as in (insert Word here)ism, describes how a term becomes an ideology, and tries to become a religion. It’s our greatest weakness to mistake the word as THEY use it, for what we think it means. We confuse the map for the thing itself, whereas they are writing new maps, to mislead us, while defining the thing itself to THEIR satisfaction.

We have been taught to see “Court” as synonymous with “Court of Law.” First, as the Second Set of Books Principle tells us, the map (Word) is not the thing itself. Yet, we have created an entire secular religion around “Law,” while failing to recognize the word “Court” need have nothing whatsoever to do with “Law.” Take this principle, and carry it across a Culture. Suddenly, you realize “1984” is the perfect book to describe how we came to our fallen state. They made the words fluid to the point of meaningless, save as a tool of political control, and made the maps describe everything BUT the thing itself. We were DELIBERATELY driven mad, by the mismatching of words, as understood by our Minds, and the same words, as seen in action, by our Senses. The mismatch reduced us to a double-bind state of learned helplessness, and none of this was by accident.

Once we realize this, and develop basic competence is dealing with it – the Game Mindset, the Tom Leykis, of Blessed Name, definitions – we do not waste one more minute being rational with the irrational, we do not fall into the trap of Wordism in dealing with people who actively plot the death of our Selves, and the genocide of our Race. If they want to steer me ever so softly down a dark alley, I shall prevail, and they will be very sorry.

THAT is what this mindset offers to us; the ability to see Women as other women see them, and not be controlled by their historically very effective non-verbal tactics.

Then, they no longer pretend, and try to destroy you. How you choose to respond to this is your choice; mine is to simply focus on Duty, writ large, and allow them to vent their anger on guys who might care. One day, these guys will need what we have to offer. Until then, let them face their own karma.

Awakening from the hypnosis of the Consensus Trance is quite challenging, until you simply do not engage them in their Control Dramas. Then, you focus on fulfilling your Duty under your incarnational Contract.

The concept of Alphas and Betas is Key, but it has to be kept broad and flexible. As Chechar said, the ability to trick women in a decadent society is only one criterion and certainly not the best one. Such men cannot be put in same league with Jefferson, Napoleon etc. But it must be admitted that trickery is part of Nature – as Napoleon and Sun Tzu said, when dealing with the enemy, perception is reality. But that cannot be a Philosophy of Life and it cannot sustain Civilizations. In the realm of Economics, it is called Inflation. In psychology, an inflated sense of self worth is part of many personality disorders.

So to keep the concept valuable, we must admit there are many kinds of Alphas. Jefferson was a Man of Intellect not an effective Warrior King like Washington or Jackson. Both are necessary and some women prefer one over the other – all other things being equal such as fame and wealth of course! Some women crave the intense physicality of a Warrior and some the light of the Mind. Some women are drawn to rebels – Alphas fate has put on the bottom who do not accept their place. A wise society looks for such men and seeks to bring them in and up. This kind of Man makes them feel needed – something that other Alphas might not. This feminine need has not been addressed in my reading here or on the Spearpoint – at least not yet.

Thanks for the analysis. I think we agree, with me leaning a bit more towards the Tom Leykis Realism School! Our Motto: “Dump That Bitch!”

I’ve been thinking about man-woman relationships in light of the Incarnational Contracts of all parties. To put it simplistically, the girl who was perfect for your when you were fourteen probably isn’t the best one for you when you are forty.

Some women crave the intense physicality of a Warrior and some the light of the Mind. Some women are drawn to rebels – Alphas fate has put on the bottom who do not accept their place.

And some women can not make up their Mind – Jefferson in the library, and Conan in bed! Female hypergamy is remarkably irresponsible from the perspective of Civilization. A steady diet of ice cream (Conan!) isn’t good for you. A steady diet of sirloin isn’t, either (Jefferson). A proportional mix of each is best. This proportion is always changing, and that does create quite a problem for men.

The correct answer, in part, comes from “Christopher from Oregon” on Marky Mark’s site. The rest of the correct answer comes from this” it does not matter one damn iots what she wants. If she is not complementing the Purpose you were chosen and trained to fulfill before the foundations were laid of the heavens and the Earth, she’s off-limits.

The great mistake we make is to try to make someone into someone they aren’t; whores into housewives is the phrase Father Himself, Tom Leykis, Of Blessed Name, says. It’s no less true for women. They “capture” Conan – the wedding – and then try to make him into Jefferson – the marriage. Both sides are unhappy, but both waste their lives trying to make the mistake marriage “work.” When Conan fails to fulfill his Potential her fantasies, to her satisfaction, she takes all of the assets, all of the income, all of the children, and all of his Dreams. The irony, of course, is that is she can change a man, she does not WANT that man. This double-bind is probably responsible for more alcoholism than we dare suspect. All the more reason for him to have kicked that Dream-stealing Whore to the curb well before he walked down the aisle with her.

A wise society looks for such men and seeks to bring them in and up.

In fact, “wise” societies are Patriarchies. Matriarchies, such as our society, seek to kill the potential Warrior Caste in the womb. Failing that, they will chemically neuter them, and intellectual geld them into ineffectiveness. Bad for them, worse for us, Hell on Earth – pretty much the Goal of the Adversary.

This, from the school’s legal counsel, ties directly to the point made by Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball, and his Second Set of Books Principle:

In any event, she argued, the campus proceeding “was not a legal process but an educational one.”

Bingo. Worse, it certainly seems this is well on the way to becoming policy (Second Set of Books) at EVERY educational institution that take federal money, under Title IX.

Six weeks before FIRE received this letter, Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, sent her own letter to every college and university in the country that accepts federal money (virtually all of them). In it, she essentially ordered them to scrap fundamental fairness in campus disciplinary procedures for adjudicating claims of sexual assault or harassment.

Merging these two, we discover “fundamental fairness” has been replaced by, in effect, “teaching them a lesson.” It is a simple matter to expand this doctrine from “sexual claims or harassment” to any case where you have disparate outcomes between the “genders.” I think this will be easily extended to ALL institutions that are under the power of Title IX. In short, all public schools, and all young men.

THIS is sexual utopia in power. Whatever might make the most instructional example of you will shape the outcome, all too often. Message? The further marginalization of Men, and males.

Many lessons present themselves.

First, they have no need to pretend to tolerate the Betas any longer.

Second, every woman has the power to drop the functional equivalent of a nuclear weapon on your son’s academic future, and your nephew’s career, merely by a casual assertion.

Third, and this must be tattooed on the inside of the skull of all young men, The Truth Is No Defense. Just being who and what you are is slowly, softly, being marginalized, on the way to being criminalized in all but name.

Finally, the most important lesson of all, this will be expanded from gender to Race. Gelding, and genocide, complement one another very well. We must begin to accept the implications of this, and prepare for what is to come, “all in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)

We must begin to redefine our lives in terms of fulfillment of our Incarnational Missions, making the fulfillment of them hobbies, at first, and then more, much more, as new possibilities present themselves…and they will.

The indiscriminate use of power remains the hallmark of the ineffective, seeking the illusion of control over others by the use for force for a moment, and condemning themselves to impotence for years, perhaps the rest of their lives. Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball had the choice to use force against others. He didn’t, realizing the issue was The System itself, which is implacably opposed to the right side of the Bell Curve, and those who make Civilization possible. Who might that be? Look in the mirror.

An excellent first step would be sending money to counter-currents regularly. Tonight would be fine. Again, the regularity of the amount is (almost!) more important than the amount.

Parenthetically, this is why I keep focusing on the Northwest Republic, and the importance of creating diary entries from 2050, showing what you did to make what you see outside our bedroom window better, and what you didn’t do, to make it worse. It really focuses your Mind on what you are doing, and why. A metapolitical focus works wonders. The FACT is, we have been rational with the irrational, discussing philosophy while they plot, and implement, class warfare to include gelding, and eventually, genocide.

For a glimpse into the treacherous territory of sexual relationships on college campuses, consider the case of Caleb Warner.

On Jan. 27, 2010, Mr. Warner learned he was accused of sexual assault by another student at the University of North Dakota. Mr. Warner insisted that the episode, which occurred the month prior, was entirely consensual. No matter to the university: He was charged with violating the student code and suspended for three years. Three months later, state police lodged criminal charges against his accuser for filing a false police report. A warrant for her arrest remains outstanding.

Among several reasons the police gave for crediting Mr. Warner’s claim of innocence was evidence of a text message sent to him by the woman indicating that she wanted to have intercourse with him. This invitation, combined with other evidence that police believe indicates her untruthfulness, has obvious implications for her charge of rape.

Nevertheless, university officials have refused to allow Mr. Warner a re-hearing—much less a reversal of their guilty verdict. When the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties group of which I am board chairman, wrote to University President Robert O. Kelley to protest, the school’s counsel, Julie Ann Evans, responded. She wrote that the university didn’t believe that the fact that Mr. Warner’s accuser was charged with lying to police, and has not answered her arrest warrant, represented “substantial new information.” In any event, she argued, the campus proceeding “was not a legal process but an educational one.”

Six weeks before FIRE received this letter, Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, sent her own letter to every college and university in the country that accepts federal money (virtually all of them). In it, she essentially ordered them to scrap fundamental fairness in campus disciplinary procedures for adjudicating claims of sexual assault or harassment.

Ms. Ali’s April 4 letter states that “in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with the standards in Title IX [which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational institution receiving federal funds], the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred).” This institutionalizes a low standard previously eschewed by most of the nation’s top schools. It also sends the message that results—not facts—matter most. Such a standard would never hold up in a criminal trial.

Following this outrageous diktat, Cornell University lowered its evidentiary burden in sexual assault cases. Now, determining whether an incident constitutes sexual violence is based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, instead of the school’s prior “clear and convincing evidence” test. Stanford followed suit—in the middle of one student’s sexual misconduct hearing. He was promptly found guilty and suspended for two years.

When Yale administrators received the government’s letter, the university was under federal investigation for permitting gender discrimination on campus. The next month, on May 17, Yale announced that it would institute a five-year suspension of a fraternity that had engaged in a puerile but harmless initiation. Parading around campus, blindfolded pledges were told to shout tasteless slogans like “No means yes, yes means anal.”

The university deemed this a sufficiently serious species of gender-based discrimination to justify official censorship. This, despite its “paramount obligation”—Yale’s words—to uphold freedom of expression. And Yale, too, lowered its previous, higher evidentiary standard in sexual assault cases to the bottom rung.

Codes banning “offensive” speech in the name of protecting the sensibilities of what are commonly designated historically disadvantaged groups—and the campus kangaroo courts that enforce them—have long threatened free expression and academic freedom. While real-world courts have invalidated many of these codes, the federal government has now put its thumb decisively on the scale against fairness on issues of sexual harassment and assault.

Caleb Warner now goes without a diploma and carries with him the stigma of a sexual predator. Unfortunately, the government’s policy ensures that his will not be a unique case.

Mr. Silverglate, a lawyer, is the author of “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” (Encounter Books, 2009). He is also the chairman of the board of directors of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The culture truly is in a death spiral, as Devlin brutally lays out for us, and at this point I don’t think anything short of a complete reset can change things. Even the mainstream social conservatives, having enjoyed the direct financial support of literally millions, seem to have more or less thrown in the towel in terms of the culture war. I’m sure there are still some hucksters out there bringing in the money for various public campaigns, but all signs point to a general retreat from the public realm. They’ve given up, and seem less and less likely to see America as a Christian county, and more likely to revert to their earlier, Christians as persecuted minority roots.

In the 80’s, the emphasis was on getting prayer back in public schools. Now it’s about home schooling. That’s a big, big change in orientation. Point is, even the mainstream conservatives seem to have accepted that the society as a whole can’t be reformed. Hence they retreat into their private world, creating whatever community they can. Of course, now that the liberals have captured almost all of the churches, where exactly do they run? Where do they find community?

What just a few decades ago seemed like a vibrant mass movement has pretty much been defeated across the board. But then, that’s what conservatives do – lose. A lot.

From the standpoint of a revolutionary movement, things look a bit different. The crumbling culture is creating more and more rogue white males who are more or less at loose ends. Not only is corporate/high finance globalization doing this on the economic level, but the state of male/female relations is facilitating it at a much deeper and more primal level, and the general anti-white propaganda and transformation of our communities is doing it on still another level. Right now we walk as strangers in a strange land, as no white men before us really have.

The system is creating the human material, though today it may appear mere flotsam and jetsam, that has the potential to destroy it. Men with less and less to lose. Men with grudges that aren’t going away any time soon. With every passing day, there are more and more people that would likely agree that a total reset may not be such a bad thing.

Still, even though I understand that it has to be this way, it’s been hard to stomach over the years. As a Gen Xer, literally my entire life has been lived in a context of constant societal decline. I am not alone in my perceptions. Living like this, decade after decade, has certainly left a profound mark on the psychology of a broad swathe of the white population.

From our point of view the main thing is the desire for or at least openness to a reset. Basically, that’s what we offer, right? A reset on certain terms. This of course taps into deep mythology and something that seems to appeal to our deepest nature, whether it is expressed as ragnarok or the flood, or what have you. The idea of a great cleansing can be very powerful stuff.

While white nationalism may be a fledgling movement today, struggling for direction and to find its voice, it truly does have the potential for exponential growth. The material for a body is there. Will the head get it’s act together in time?

Great analysis. Let me try to place the possible range of solution sets in a metapolitical context.

They’ve given up, and seem less and less likely to see America as a Christian county, and more likely to revert to their earlier, Christians as persecuted minority roots.

Conservatism is sensed as failing, badly, and the vanguard recognize CONservatives simply try to use the words of cultural conservatism to mask the liquidation of their standard of living. They are retreating to home churches, home schooling, and church-based – but not dominated – networks of mutual support. In effect, they are creating a White Tribe – the foundation of a White Nation. These people really support an ethnostate, by the way. Their sense of betrayal is palpable. What they need next is a Masculine Christianity. That does create an opportunity for us. And, think on a Covington level – we can do amazing organizational things with a church, and it should not have any of that 501 (c) (3) nonsense about it. Most churches, and all synagogues, are 508 corporations. Little known fact.

The crumbling culture is creating more and more rogue white males who are more or less at loose ends,…strangers in a strange land.

This economic system is failing in its prime purpose, and can not be redeemed. Hence, my focus on Starting Over, working with a philosophy of Voluntary Simplicity, within the framework of your Incarnational Contract, and the metapolitical solutions. Organization is happening quickly, and the need for the central state as we have known it is failing. They still have Plans for us, but they see us an eminently expendable. They also fear Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books Insight getting out, and being understood. The Internet is disintermediating all bureaucracies. This creates tremendous opportunities for us, particularly in the analytical framework of a Northwest Republic – a nation FOUNDED ON the Idea of a Racial Homeland for the Racially Conscious Community. This is also why I keep asking people to do diaries describing the view from their bedroom window in 2050, and what they did to make it better. It’s a Challenge few are up to, even in a cursory manner, because they still hope that somehow, magically, 1950’s America will come back. It won’t. It won’t be allowed to. Take the opportunity this presents.

While white nationalism may be a fledgling movement today, struggling for direction and to find its voice, it truly does have the potential for exponential growth. The material for a body is there. Will the head get it’s act together in time?

If we support counter-currents each and every month, it will have all of its excuses removed. Most of self-identified WNism, as Dr. Revilo Oliver realized, is simply kabuki, operations that seem more to be false-flag than substantial. We can Do Something about this, daily. Money to counter-currents – “folding money” – regularly is best, but regular repeat regular amounts, no matter how small, are humbling reminders of the gratitude we should feel, and express, to the people at counter-currents, and Harold Covington, for doing the heavy lifting.

The alternative is to be the victims of the policy of genocide repeat genocide against the White Race, focusing on gelding our men, killing the potential Warrior Caste off in the womb, and masculinizing our Women. Families are the organic foundation of the living nation, and destroying the Families BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY is their Prime Directive. The best way – neutralize the men, geld the boys, and try to kill of the Warrior Caste, preferably in the womb.

I admire Dr. Oliver’s approach to the JQ, because he did not define us as helpless victims. Rather, he looked at what worked for them – social technology, if you will. It can work for us, as well, and that’s why Family is under such horrific attack. We can Do Something about that.

Did I mention the critical importance of Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic as the temporal bridge to the metapolitical project? I didn’t? Sorry. This allows us to conceive of Solutions in the proper context, where we are not victims. We are Conquerors, and shapers of worlds – all, of course, “in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim “Strictly Legal” Giles)

Yes, systems have the seeds of their own destruction in them right from the begining. Prosperity breeds corruption – coddling of daughters being just one example. We need to always have the Moral Equivalent of War at hand to keep from going rotten and having to fight a real war after going soft. That’s what Thomas Jefferson’s program for his daughter was about in a deep sense. Obviously appreciation of culture, passing it on, and winning a mate are in there too. But culture is for the living – surival comes first as Jefferson knew.

I think John Norman Howard is pointing in the right direction. Let’s see.

The time of Fall is a time of moral inversion; woman need men (and vice-versa) to fulfill a Purpose that neither can filfill on their own. Yet, woman now have the power of men, without the responsiblity of the Patrarich, the guiding Force behind Civilization. Hence, women build Towers of Babble, without effectiveness in the greater world.

Devlin’s most jaw dropping piece has not been published here, yet. Essentially, he discusses how Civilization REQUIRES Betas – solid, reliable, hard-working pluggers -to build Civilization, and expand it further into the Realm of the Barbarians.

Women NEED Civilization, but hate – truly, deeply hate – what Civilization most needs – solid Betas, following the lead and working with the Alphas who can see a bit futher, and are a bit more aggressive in terms of dealing with the Barbarians.

Thus, all Women fight over the few Alphas, at all costs – firty years of marriage to a solid, realible Beta? cheap! – and the Betas ONE DAY recognize the Game is rigged against them. They leave the Game. The women become bitter, abandoned whorse and sluts, the Alphas move onto more rewarding resource bases, and the Betas live lives of quiet peace and prosperity, becoming, softly and quietly, the new Alphas, without the need to conquer that which is decayed, diseased, and worthless.

As for the Women, with precious few exceptions, like “Lauren Lazlo,” they wonder why the lights are going out, why the leak in the roof is not repaired, why the potholes are not fixed, why the Betas no longer seek to play Charlie Brown with Lucy’s Rules Football, in a world ruled not by the rule of Law, and the system of checks and balances we were told of in Civics class, but by Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books. Ans what is it when the Alphas leave, and the Betas do not play the Game anymore?

FC, I didn’t know about that Devlin article you mention and look forward to see it republished here. I am new to this subject and, as far as I know, this novel knowledge doesn’t endorse the so-called “Game” as a legit lifestyle. For instance, I happen to be a big fan of Jane Austen. What do you think of Pat Hannagan’s comments a few months ago at Mangan’s? He said:

Rollory said: “You can see the principles discussed under the heading of “Game” at work in Jane Austen, if you know what to look for.”

Since you know what to look for please explain it to us.

Does Mr Darcy have Game? Wins out in the end but at first was despised. Mr Bingley? What about Mr Bennet?

Mr Wickham though, sure, there’s our PUA/Gamer. What a top bloke he is. He had everyone fooled and tried to even seduce his mate and benefactor’s younger sister.

According to Game theory though Darcy, Bingley and old man Bennet would be Betas and Wickham is the Alpha. Which says it all, doesn’t it, about the way things were and what they are now?

Of course, if you all want to be Wickhams you’re welcome to your gains, just don’t tell us that you’re the “alpha”, top dog that is. A dog for sure, but you don’t rule the roost. That job goes to the cock who impregnates and MANTAINS the brood.

The only reason “alphadom” has any credence is due to the anonymity provided by large, decadent, Western cities, feeding like a large Paralysis Tick on the lifeblood of the “betas” they deride.

Of course, the law’s in your favour which allows you to run your game without any of the traditional, cultural, inhibitors like a good old fashioned beating would have provided. Game doesn’t run so well when it’s spoken through broken teeth.

“Game,” as defined by Roissy, Of Blessed Name, is like administering a massive dose of adrenaline directly into the heart of a dead man. It’s necessary, to *shock* you into seeing how the world really works. Then, it’s more like a drug that stops infections from getting started.

It’s necessary for the manginae; if they don’t use it personally to attract and manipulate “women” (see “Christopher from Oregon’s comments on Marky Mark’s site), it is useful as an analytical tool to build up emotional distance.

Thus, it is a means to an end, and not an end unto itself.

“Pat Hannagan” cited in blockquote:

Of course, if you all want to be Wickhams you’re welcome to your gains, just don’t tell us that you’re the “alpha”, top dog that is. A dog for sure, but you don’t rule the roost. That job goes to the cock who impregnates and MANTAINS the brood.

And as for the Alpha who is chosen to father Elizabeth’s child, while leaving Darcy to raise Alpha Wickham’s child as his own? Priceless. The cuckold is always the last to know! And, Darcy does not “rules the roost” – that’s the duty of the hen! And a happy little hen Elizabeth would be, too, with Wickham’s child raised by the fortune of Mr. Darcy.

The only reason “alphadom” has any credence is due to the anonymity provided by large, decadent, Western cities, feeding like a large Paralysis Tick on the lifeblood of the “betas” they deride.

No, Genghis Khan’s DNA lives on, mingled over centuries, but still, lives on. We all follow the Alphas – the Jeffersons, the Yockeys, the Mannsteins, the best of the best. We take what they offer in peaks and valleys, and moderate it to the good of all. We are mocked and scorned by women for this, so we do what’s right because it is our Duty to the Race, writ large. Women thus become useful, if at all, only as Complementary Partners in the fulfillment of a Great Work. A quick note – the cleverest trick of the Adversary is to find a perfect Companion for you in all ways, except she will not share your spiritual values. Mr. Darcy will soon learn this.

Of course, the law’s in your favour which allows you to run your game without any of the traditional, cultural, inhibitors like a good old fashioned beating would have provided. Game doesn’t run so well when it’s spoken through broken teeth.?

Game runs beautifully well, because it;s what women REALLY want. The “traditional cultural inhibitors” are as useless as, say the admonitions to Khaleesi, at the ending of Season One of “Game of Thrones.” Told not to go into the fire – where SHE orders the death of a woman who threatened the Race! – she survives, spends the night in the ashes (Jungian symbolism alert!), and emerges with the little (not for long!) Heralds of a shift in Consciousness. The men who told her not to walk into the fire now bow before her, and her little winged friends! NO ONE runs Game on Khaleesi. In return, she has no need to pretend support of Betas, save as means to an end, a metapolitical end. She will probably encourage the best of the Betas to try to become disciplined Alphas, their Talents harnessed consciously to a metapolitical purpose. The rest of the Betas will be encouraged to be good Betas. Alphas who threaten the Race will be exterminated. That’s my guess.

The world of Jane Austen is a great example for us. Jane is speaking Girl Code from the very opening – “It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a single gentleman of good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Read that slowly. Translated, “Girls, an Alpha male needs a woman; look in the mirror! Primp up!” From our perspective, “Men, the women love your potential to make their Dreams a reality. You think they love you. You’re wrong. They want to GET married, and show her good fortune you off to her friends. They do NOT want to BE married. Stand by, boys, and get ready to Dump That Bitch.”

I’ve READ Austen. I’ve outlined it! It’s Girl Code 101. Remember, the moment she decides Darcy is the one for her is NOT when she meets Darcy. No, it’s when she sees Pemberly, his large, powerful, well-built, and generously endowed…. country estate. THAT is when she decides Darcy is The One For Her – at least, until Someone Better comes along. Perhaps, for example, Mr. Wyckham, visiting while Mr. Darcy is off to London…

Incidentally, there was someone screen named “Eliabeth Bennett” who did a thread called “How To Marry A High Quality Woman.” I might find that, and use it as a counterpoint to Game. Hey, use what works from all across the spectrum. Just don’t be a victim!

Notice, by the way, no real Male in the Bennett household; just kind, gentle, wise, old Mr. Bingley. Think Jane is dropping a Girl Code hint there? Bet on it.

Thanks for your reply. Yours is one—legit I’d say—interpretation of Pride & Prejudice. But Pat Hannagan’s point in that thread was also legit. Talking about the reset (cf. what Trainspotter says below), Pat tried to say that those who played Casanova had been punished in the Austen world, e.g. by disinheriting Mr Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility.

Interim Note: It turns out that Willoughby seduced the Colonel’s 15 year old ward, Eliza, then abandoned her though she was pregnant. Brandon finds her and rescues her, but in doing so Willoughby’s actions are revealed to the world. When his aunt is informed of this scandal, she demands that he make reparations to the girl. When he refused, she expelled him from her estate of Allenham and also threatened to disinherit him, which would leave him without monetary support, and with many debts.

In other words, once civilization is reset, the behavior of those who still want to play these games without breeding or taking care of their children should be discouraged. I agree with shotgun marriage, whether with the shotgun at the woman’s back or at the man’s back, depending on the case.

The shot in the heart metaphor you mention is perhaps accurate for the frustrated young men of our society. But it’s for emergency times only. Once Western civilization is reset, Casanovas — “alphas” by Roissy’s standard of lifestyles; pseudo-alphas according to me since they don’t breed — are real losers. Let’s take the Casanova paradigm, I mean: the historical man.

Despite his countless coitus Casanova didn’t invest in his future in the traditional form of a warm family. We find him, in his old age, with syphilis at the shadow of an Austrian nobleman. Without his money women did not respect him. His last refuge was to write his memoirs, but during his lifespan no one pays attention to his manuscripts. The man wrote folio after folio for twelve hours a day for seven years only as a defense mechanism. “It was the only way in which I could hinder myself from becoming crazy,” confesses the old hermit. “For seven years I have been doing nothing else than write my memoirs… I look forward to being rational enough in my last illness to have all the manuscript burnt before my eyes.”

But Casanova didn’t do it and naive people glorified the adventures of this failed man after he died.

I thought the issue was a critique of Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” in light of Devlin’s analysis. I think the Pill makes a lot of Austen irrelevant. THAT genie is not going back in the bottle. What is coming in genetic engineering will astonish us, and not necessarily in a good way.

Women still want REAL Men. They just don’t feel bound to treat them honorably, and that’s fine – as long as that is on the table. The Reset might take place over decades, or generations, no one knows. Capital tools have replaced much of what Beta Males had to offer, and intelligent machines are here, forerunners of an economic system that is just getting started. No need for Charlie Brown, save as a reliable maintenance mechanic, a useful tool. Again, women will choose forty minutes with an Alpha Male – think Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark – over forty years with a Beta. Betas are openly mocked in Austen’s world, and they will be mocked for the foreseeable future. That’s just how women see it. Mr. Bingley only had one vote; the Bennett women outvoted him, in deeds if nothing else.

Young men need that adrenaline hit, straight to the heart, and they need Alpha Males – true Patriarchs – willing to stand by their side during this Initiation event. They’ve been lied to horribly, their Dreams betrayed by those they had no choice but to trust in, rather like Children, and THAT Is Not By Accident. The hatred Institutional Christianty has for them is being returned; youtube has Blind Guardian’s “Voice In The Dark” video. This is an example of the Deeper Truth Christianity must work with, if the Next Christianity is to redeem itself in the eyes of the Race.

Ironically, the First Biological Revolution – the birth control pill – and the Second Biological Revolution – genetic engineering – makes the ability to harness Alpha Consciousness in the fulfillment of the metapolitical project all the more important. Betas are simply becoming culls, unless they Do Something That Matters. I cite the example of Khaleesi, of Game of Thrones. I don’t know how the book went, but I know she will not settle for second best, and neither should we. Fortunately, having made the Decision to Win, “We’re Going To Win!”

PS: Casanova left the world no better for his having been here, and no poorer for his passing. Overcompensating, incompetent Beta, at best. Yet, competent Betas, hated and scorned by foolish women, make the world work. Even the parson in Pride and Prejudice, softly scorned by Elizabeth, has his useful place in the scheme of things – except for the women who see him only as a living prop for their machinations.

What to do? Which Way, Western Man? Sending some money to counter-currents is the best way to start, at the Institutional level.

F. Rodger Devlin the king of zing! He reminds me of Camille Paglia. Devlin’s writing has it all: wit, erudition, humor and penetrating insight; he destroys the other side’s errors of fact, logic and and history like a wrecking ball destroying a building.

Mark Hess: I’m not sure which articles you are reading. Perhaps you are the first troll to make it past Greg Johnson’s comment moderation? I have a daughter too, and I’m baffled about your evident hostility toward Devlin.

I am posting Mark’s comments for a reason. They provide an occasion for a lesson in connoisseurship. A free autographed copy of my Confessions of a Reluctant Hater to the one who guesses the right answer.

I am too lazy to read Mark’s comments and thus try to guess the right answer. I skipped most of his comments here at CC. I can only say that at TOO it bothered me that Mark spoke in high terms of “Cass Sunstein” (“Hunter Wallace” = Brad Griffin) precisely in the thread about Confessions of a Reluctant Hater. Mark didn’t even address the exposé that Parrot, Johnson and I did in that very thread about Sunstein’s lies about the rape of the Sabine women. Perhaps he doesn’t even have a daughter.

His Truth is undeniable – but what dark knowledge it is. Can any romance or idealization of women survive once a person knows these facts? Are any women better than this? I hope so but I’m not sure I’ve met any. And the few that are must be taken early.

Julia Roberts married a camera man. Is he an extraordinary man, a quiet Alpha and she a someone who has transcended the game as it is ordinarily played and married for love? Or is he just a “mangina” (my new word from Spearpoint) and she just a practicioner of role reversal?

His Truth is undeniable – but what dark knowledge it is. Can any romance or idealization of women survive once a person knows these facts? Are any women better than this? I hope so but I’m not sure I’ve met any. And the few that are must be taken early.

We’ve been groomed – hypnotized, indoctrinated, manipulated – into being Charlie Brown’s, solid George Soldini ticket-punchers, working to “make something of ourselves,” strategically. Our Game for women is strictly tactical, and poor tactics, at that. Women play a strategic Game on the relationship front – essentially, make you trade your future, your Dreams, for her Plans, which require your Resources – money, retirement account, etc. Leykis talks about Dream-Killers in the mp3’s I linked to.

Is there Hope?

Not for “marriage” as we have known it. Sorry. I’ve talked a friend out of suicide when he realized the Court of “Equity” he got divorced in took all he had worked for all of his life, giving it, half of his retirement account, most of his income, and his son, to a hate-filled shrew. He would have traded it all for his son. None of those “checks and balances” we were taught in Civics class were present. The judge was an out lesbian.

Is there Hope?

Yes. We shall spend the time we spend supporting manipulative Dream Killers into making something of our lives, something much better than it might have been. Ergo, we now have a strategic plan – the fulfillment of the metapolitical project for the Race. Our part is to become meritocratically valuable – better and better at who we really were supposed to be, at the core of our incarnational contract.

The larger issue you address is one I hesitate to discuss. However, is there One and Only One for you, for the rest of time and eternity? I would hope so, but the odds are so long the best solution is to find the one who supports you and your Vision for the moment, the forseeable future. Don’t look for her, as you wil be tempted to settle for second best, and wonder why you are never really at peace with yourself. As Father Himself, Tom Leykis said: “Boys, ain’t no piece of nothing worth your peace of mind. Focus on working, saving, and making yourself better.” I wish someone had told me that when I was twelve.

Julia Roberts married a camera man. Is he an extraordinary man, a quiet Alpha and she a someone who has transcended the game as it is ordinarily played and married for love? Or is he just a “mangina” (my new word from Spearpoint) and she just a practicioner of role reversal?

Not being Julia Roberts, I cn answer the best part of the question – if he is “an extraordinary man, a quiet Alpha,” then he exemplifies what we should all aspire to be. Then, we might get the NEXT Julia Roberts, if only for a while, while we keep making ourselves better at being who and what we chose to Become during this incarnation.

I assure you there are women better than this. Well at least one woman… myself, obviously. I devour Counter-Currents pieces daily. Now that I am thinking about it, I have spent more time than is worthwhile contemplating why I have never met a man who understands my Weltanschauung. I imperceptibly nod my head in an affirming, knowing anticipation as the points argued on this site align with my own ruminations, and wonder: How much further am I going to travel down this path, that seems to be expanding in countless ways, before I meet someone in the flesh who is perfectly aligned with my goals as a woman? I feel whole heartedly in tune with the view of femininity espoused on this website, but I occasionally detect something a bit unsavory in its expression. I am not a capricious fool, but do I not deny that it is something I fight to sublimate about my nature as a woman. Being blessed with decent intellectual capabilities, I have been able to understand, therefore, make controlled attempts to reign in my destructive, petty impulses.

Are there are women out there that will support your vision of the future (both personally and beyond)? Yes. (I have never met one, not that that means much). However, I have an impending sense of being relegated to living a life amongst myself, and the objects and ideas that silently surround me. Being only nineteen years of age, that might seem melodramatic, but… my youthful enthusiasm has not given up hope yet…

How much further am I going to travel down this path, that seems to be expanding in countless ways, before I meet someone in the flesh who is perfectly aligned with my goals as a woman?

Perhaps you and he should be “perfectly aligned” with goals that are linked to Duty, a transcendent sense of Purpose. What surrounds you is not ready – yet. On the last day of high school, back in the day, the faculty would give you a few parting Words of Wisdom. These usually fell on deaf ears. My Honor Society Advisor took us aside and said, “Here is the beginning of Wisdom: You come into this world alone, and you leave this world alone.”

HER focus was always on discipline, and responsibility, writ large. This did not mean you were responsible for Others, but only for how you chose to relate to them. Want to be a victim? Your choice. Want to be effective? Your choice. Father Himself, Tom Leykis, Of Blessed Name, told his listeners, “Do you want to know who is responsible for your life, for you being where you are? Look in the mirror, Son. THAT’S WHO.”

You are still growing, and evolving at an incredible rate; men who are Worthy of such are usually still growing, but haven’t locked into the Purpose for which they chose this Incarnation. Most don’t, and live lives of quiet desperation. They are the ones I call Charlie Brown, the ones who look like beaten dogs. They don’t make the cut, and will try to destroy you if you try to change them. So don’t, and live a life of effectiveness.

If I was nineteen, knowing what I know now, I would focus on Spiritual Purpose. This would start with meeting a serious professional astrologer – none of these Sun Signs people! – and try to identify my Talents, and transform them into Capacities. Other vocational tools are available – Self-Directed Search, etc., and all of the unemployment offices/school career counselors know of them. Don’t limit your choice to their choice. Focus on the metaissue of the Incarnational Contract. I would at least make that a hobby, and would live a life of voluntary simplicity.

As you move in THAT direction, you will meet the kind of people who will accept you for who you are, and support you in who you are becoming. Again, voluntary simplicity.

Most women are doomed to miserable lives, trying to life a “Sex and the City” lifestyle on a Wal-Mart budget. The crippling illusion of debt will destroy your soul. A major debt creator is college. Your employer no longer cares about such things, unless that degree is linked DIRECTLY to an employment purpose – a teaching certificate, for example. Even then, use the online learning available for free, like Khan Academy.

The Internet fulfills so many functions that yesterday’s Institutions used to meet; they are no longer necessary, and soon will be obsolete. Flexibility will be important; the ability to move when needed will be useful, indeed. Housing prices will not recover. Period. They are capital drains. Period. Being young, you have choices, the foundation of power, of effectiveness.

Again, move steadily along The Path defined by the fulfillment of your Incarnational Contract. Only there will you find people who complement your Work.

Two slightly unorthodox ideas, and, given the failures of orthodoxy, they are worth a look.

One, consider developing an interest in your health using kettlebells, a cheap, powerful tool for strength and effectiveness. Compliment this with a martial discipline – women gravitate to aikido, which works just fine for getting the Mindset they will need. thanks to Title IX, young women are now taking wrestling classes in middle school, with the boys. A new definition of virility is developing, and the demographic of the Virile Female has caught the attention of the demographers.

Two, consider – again, just consider – taking an intro course to the Landmark Forum. The author of “Fight Club” did this, and it changed his life instantly. Hey! “First Rule of Fight Club IS…?” It might help you see some issues from a deeper perspective.

Three, consider sending money – even a dollar or two – every month, to counter-currents. I suspect The Management is humbled with gratitude for every dollar, as it is a vote for the Light, in a world that worships Darkness.

Counter-currents is unique in the WN2/N sphere (White/Western Nationalists). Everyone else, with one or two exceptions, blames the Enemy, as if we were helpless little children. The Enemy supports this practice of demoralization, their Prime control technique. We are not, and we don’t. To the extent we are, it has been because we have accepted what Horus the Avenger calls the Consensus Trance. Fighting this is part of the process of Awakening. It’s worth it.

A Vanguard is being consciously Created, by members of the Racially Conscious Community. You might want to think about that. Among women who want to be Ladies – these are the ones who sustain Civilization, and take three generations to groom – look to the models put forward by Anita Stansfield, among others. Yes, long black skirts, long-sleeved, high-collared white blouses, etc., BUT they dictate the Terms they Choose. A lot of young women are trying desperately to attain such effectiveness. They need role models for intellectual and moral support. You could set just such a silent example. The New Victorians will be required. Think about how that MIGHT apply to you.

And finally, if anything I have said does or does not resonate with you, keep the best, and throw away the rest!

Excellent series of essays. Just amazing. I love the calm, clinical, deadly manner in which Devlin takes apart the feminist-sexual scene. I agree with the other commenter: this deserve a book.

On another note, I feel much better about having avoided marriage and children. It’s as if I’ve dodged a bullet. Sure, it might get lonely at times, but I have no problem dying alone. The sexual side of things is satisfied by ‘hooking up’ with a string of FWBs or the occasional weekend away with a hot escort.

If only I knew then (in my idealistic teens and 20s) what I know now…it could have saved me a lot of heartache, frustration, and anger.

When I meet sad, embittered, single women who put off marriage and children for a career and are desperate for a man–ANY man–now, I just smile.

Great point. If we were hypnotized“suggested” into trying to make something work that could not work, because of hidden structural issues that were never disclosed to us, how difficult would it be to “hypnotize“suggest” us into advocating the genocide of the White Race? Horace the Avenger’s “Consensus Trance” is validated as part of an Open Conspiracy.

It’s like that old movie, “War Games,” where the computer is discussing thermonuclear war, and says, “The only way to win is not to play the game.” Yes, exactly.

Tom Leykis discusses how many of his “friends” trie to get him married at their wives “suggestions.” Why did the wives of other men want Leykis married? Because if they saw what a great life he had without wife and children, he might set a bit of an example for them, if you know what I mean.

It is not accurate to describe muslim societites anywhere near what the writer implies. Muslim socieites are the last crunch of decadence and dysgenic reproduction. The higher strate of muslim castes have the ” privilege” of owning several wifes, or even a harem. What garbage do we get from this haunts of debauched sexuality ???? It is all around us. The institution of marriage was enacted for one purpose and one purpose only, the raising and bringing up of the family nuclei; not for freelance fornication. That is the only reason for marriage. The enemies have struck to the foundations of solid family life and its age old institution. It was a wonderful essay, many valid points were cogently brought forth and articulated.

I really enjoyed this series, it put in words a lot of issues I have been aware of but unable to formulate clearly. Especially the idea that it was social norms exercised through peer pressure that kept the ruthless and ravaging forces of sexuality under control, and now when these norms are gone, the natural behavior of women appears, which seem to lead to fewer births and a lesser degree of happiness in society.

One thing that strikes me though, is that now when the game for sex has been unrestrained and the individuals involved act all according to instinct and not norms, shouldn’t this mean some kind of eugenic effect? When 1 female previously had children with 1 male, the situation now arises when 1 alpha-male can get many children with several females. Just like the author is pointing out this is the natural behavior that animals exhibit, probably the case in primitive man, and also in moslem societies of today – to some degree this would mean that genes from unfit males are eliminated and that the alpha-male genes are spreading more than they would have done during the more monogamous periods in western civilization.

Of course this doesn’t compensate for the problem with fewer births in total, but still interesting. Given the fact that degenerate people born in the 19th century would have died off from sickness or starvation (since then there were no welfare) the monogamy which increased the chances for the average male to reproduce would not be as dysgenic as it would be today when a degenerate low-value male can raise a family on contributions.

Polygamy for Alpha males would only be eugenic if they actually had children, of course, preferably with the high quality females who are wasting their child-bearing years chasing dollars and status. But aside from certain Danish sperm-bank studs who have fathered hundreds of children for wealthy career women who for some reason can’t find a man to marry, where is this happening?